Martin v. United States of America

Filing 160

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as to Bernard Keith Martin; adopting and incorporating 158 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, denying 154 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Bernard Keith Martin; dismissing this civil action from the docket of this Court; denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 5/7/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party; Mag. Judge) (tmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
BERNARD KEITH MARTIN
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-09899
(Criminal No. 2:08-cr-00230)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn
for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for
disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On March 27, 2019, Magistrate
Judge Aboulhosn submitted his Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation
[ECF No. 158] (“PF&R”), recommending that the court deny Defendant’s Motion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence. The time to object
has expired, and no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS and INCORPORATES herein the PF&R. For
the reasons stated therein, the defendant’s Motion [ECF No. 154] is DENIED, and
this civil action is DISMISSED from the docket of this court.
Additionally, the court has considered whether to grant a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A certificate will not be granted unless there

is “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). The
standard is satisfied only upon a showing that reasonable jurists would find that any
assessment of the constitutional claims by this court is debatable or wrong and that
any dispositive procedural ruling is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336–38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683–84 (4th Cir. 2001). The court concludes that the governing standard is not
satisfied in this instance. Accordingly, the court DENIES a certificate of
appealability.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record,
any unrepresented party, and the Magistrate Judge.
ENTER:

May 7, 2019